Comments by GerdDegens
@ H.G.
It is impressive how you quickly make variants playable. Hard to believe! Could you give 'Avatar Chess' a chance?
@ Aurelian: Possible, indeed. It may be that Avatar Chess is not similar to the usual variants. But what does that tell us?
Anyway, the classic of this genre is still smess, if anyone asks me!
Nobody seems to do that.
I would like to introduce a new variant - called 'Borderline'.
It is a minimalistic version on a 7x7 board, without pawns, with only one king to capture, no capturing of opponent pieces. Rank 4 is the borderline, which must be crossed to attack the king. The pieces move according to FIDE rules.
Perhaps the variant is a bit too minimalistic, but it seems pleasantly playable.
I don't know if such a variant has been presented before. But I'm sure the community knows it.
Thanks Thor for the flowers. For those interested: Chess69
@ Fergus Duniho
Thor Slavensky wrote on 2022-10-23 CEST Good ★★★★
This is a great idea with those switches. Together with the twisting of the files it makes a very interesting board and game. The switches give instantly the game a dynamic tension which is enjoyable. And a very sophisticated solution that 2 squares together constitute 1 field on which there can only be 1 piece. There is no mentioning of pawn move/capture (maybe it could be helpful), but it must be implied that 'normal' forward movement and diagonal capturing are in place, that will often be first 'battle' around the switches.What is better than 2 switches? That has to be 4 switches! The inventor, Gerd Degens, has also such a game, Chess69, which can be viewed through the link at the top, or for CVP members through the link in the comments. I will try to make a comment about it later. But I can only recommend to the editors that this game also is published properly. It is even more interesting because here the ranks are also twisted, very delightful for us fans of 'unusually shaped boards'. It already has a old post from 2003 here on CVP with a broken link in the Alphabetical Index and the Topic Index, so that will have to be displaced.
Chess 69 is the follow-up to Chess 66; Chess 66 has already been published properly. Thanks in advance.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
I had it in mind, but did not formulate it. Therefore a first addition:
Capturing from baseline to baseline is excluded.
I have adjusted the rules.
Since captured pieces get back into play by taking their position on the baseline, it is implied that opposing pieces on the baseline cannot be captured.
Here my description was not sufficient, sorry. It should read: 'Capturing of opponent's pieces on the baseline is excluded'. Therefore a move Ra2xa7 is not possible.
I have adjusted my description.
For example, Nc3. But what about Ne3 Ra3? Then we have a stalemate between Ra3 and Nb1 or Ra3 and Bc1. One could end the round robin with a counter. But since no one has an interest in that, reason wins out and the game continues with other moves. At least one would think so.
Maybe my gobbledegook can be unraveled.
Regarding your question: 1.Nc3 Ra3 2.Rb1 Rxc3... What happens? The knight falls back to its starting position b1. My answer was: For example, Nc3 - which means that the knight can immediately hit back. Or to say it another way: the rook attack goes nowhere.
The following was a new example and I thought you could see that (surely my mistake). I asked: But what about Ne3 Ra3 - here I made a typo, because it should be Na3 Ra3. In this case we would have a stalemate between Na3 and Ra3; this applies equally to Ra3 and Ba3. That's what I wanted to point out. I expect that no one wants to stay in the stalemate and that other moves will take place. Here I had mentioned the counter, but I'm not sure if this is a solution.
P.S.: Comments should not be written with the mobile phone.
Okay, that doesn't sound very logical. You could still say that a captured piece falls back to the baseline, a square can be chosen, but that doesn't make things better. The concept needs to be rethought.
It may be that my concept is garbage. But it could also be that it could work. Am grateful for any suggestion.
This diagram shows its legal moves a few moves after it has moved to 4. At this point, it may move to b3 but not back to c1. Is this all correct?
The move options shown are correct.
The possible moves of a bishop on 4 go in the direction of d1 or e8, but not to a3, b2 or c1.
Here are some examples that are not handled clearly enough in the description of the rules. The following diagram shows legal moves for the Bishop on c1. It can move to 4, though not to a4.
These moves are not possible.
The bishop on c1 can move to a3, but not into the switch. The bishop on 4 can in principle move to d1 or e8. The moves to a3, b2 or d1 are not possible. The queen on d1 can reach the switch - provided there is nothing in between. In the switch, the queen can be on 4 or a4.
Now, based on these, it would be legal for a Queen (or Bishop) on g6, as illustrated below, to move to either h5 or 5. Is this correct?
That is absolutely correct. The move possibilities of the queen are shown completely.
After the discussion at that time I have adapted my description. In summary it says:
- Finally, you can move into a switch from below, from the side or from above. If the switch is not occupied, then you can choose whether the piece that moves into the switch is on 4 or a4 respectively on 5 or h5 after the move. If the switch is occupied, then the piece in the switch must be captured; the opponent’s piece takes the place of the captured piece.
Using alternating horizontal lines in both colors in half of 4 and 5 instead of a dividing line seems to be a good solution.
Does a Pawn on a2 or h7 have an option concerning which space it goes to in a double move?
Yes, that is how it should be. A pawn must also have a unique position in the switch - 4 or a4 / 5 or h5. I think it is logical if this applies to all pieces in the game.
If so, details about this and the effect it has on en passant should be included.
You mean the description? If so - I want to wait for more tips, and then revise the description.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I would like to see similar discussions around 'AC'.